User Profile Search Results

Individual Data. Each row is a case for a single subject in the dataset.

Study	Subject	Age	Gender	Diagnosis	Interface	Body site	Word prediction?	TER (wpm)
Koester 2007	64	39	M	SCI_cervical	physical_keyboard	finger_unilateral	N	4.94
Koester 2007	64	39	M	SCI_cervical	physical_keyboard	finger_unilateral	N	5.30
Koester 2007	64	39	M	SCI_cervical	physical_keyboard	finger_unilateral	N	6.65
Koester 2015	147	62	M	SCI_cervical	physical_keyboard	hand_with_CE	N	7.70
Koester 2015	147	62	M	SCI_cervical	physical_keyboard	hand_with_CE	N	9.50
Koester 2007	65	24	M	SCI_high_cervical	physical_keyboard	finger_bilateral	N	10.98
Koester 2004	24	46	M	SCI_high_cervical	physical_keyboard	finger_unilateral	N	14.70
Koester 2004	27	24	M	SCI_high_cervical	physical_keyboard	finger_unilateral	N	12.80
Koester 2004	40	31	F	SCI_high_cervical	physical_keyboard	fingers_bilateral	N	10.70
Koester 2007	65	24	M	SCI_high_cervical	physical_keyboard	fingers_bilateral	N	9.18
Koester 2007	65	24	M	SCI_high_cervical	physical_keyboard	fingers_bilateral	N	9.32
Koester 2004	36	29	M	SCI_high_cervical	physical_keyboard	hand_with_CE	N	8.60
Koester 2004	46	25	M	SCI_high_cervical	physical_keyboard	hand_with_CE	N	14.20
Koester 2007	61	40	M	SCI_high_cervical	physical_keyboard	hand_with_CE	N	19.39
Koester 2007	61	40	M	SCI_high_cervical	physical_keyboard	hand_with_CE	N	17.58
Koester 2007	61	40	M	SCI_high_cervical	physical_keyboard	hand_with_CE	N	22.50
Lau 1993	8	-	M	SCI_high_cervical	physical_keyboard	mouth	N	11.20
Lau 1993	9	-	M	SCI_high_cervical	physical_keyboard	mouth	N	10.40
DeVries 1998	11	25	M	SCI_high_cervical	physical_keyboard	mouth	N	5.00
Pouplin 2015	162	-	-	SCI_high_cervical	physical_keyboard	mouth	N	12.60
Koester 2004	24	46	M	SCI_high_cervical	ASR	voice	N	31.70
Koester 2004	27	24	M	SCI_high_cervical	ASR	voice	N	24.70
Koester 2004	32	59	M	SCI_high_cervical	ASR	voice	N	18.10
Koester 2004	36	29	M	SCI_high_cervical	ASR	voice	N	6.90
Koester 2004	40	31	F	SCI_high_cervical	ASR	voice	N	16.00
Koester 2004	41	24	M	SCI_high_cervical	ASR	voice	N	10.90
Koester 2004	46	25	M	SCI_high_cervical	ASR	voice	N	32.20
Koester 2004	39	54	F	SCI_low_cervical	physical_keyboard	finger_unilateral	N	3.70
Koester 2007	56	48	M	SCI_low_cervical	physical_keyboard	finger_unilateral	N	12.96
Koester 2007	56	48	M	SCI_low_cervical	physical_keyboard	finger_unilateral	N	13.04
Koester 2007	56	48	M	SCI_low_cervical	physical_keyboard	finger_unilateral	N	14.62
Koester 2007	59	28	F	SCI_low_cervical	physical_keyboard	finger_unilateral	N	34.55
Koester 2007	59	28	F	SCI_low_cervical	physical_keyboard	finger_unilateral	N	35.53
Koester 2007	59	28	F	SCI_low_cervical	physical_keyboard	finger_unilateral	N	32.38
Pouplin 2015	163	-	-	SCI_low_cervical	physical_keyboard	hand_unspecified	N	7.56
Koester 2004	35	40	F	SCI_low_cervical	physical_keyboard	hand_with_CE	N	17.90
Koester 2004	35	40	F	SCI_low_cervical	ASR	voice	N	10.00
Koester 2004	39	54	F	SCI_low_cervical	ASR	voice	N	11.10
Pouplin 2015	161	-	-	SCI_low_cervical	ASR	voice	N	17.00

Group Data. Each row is a group of subjects that had no individual data reported.

Study	Diagnosis	Interface	Body site	Word prediction?	Sample size	Avg TER (wpm)	StdDev TER (wpm)	Min TER (wpm)	Max TER (wpm)
Koester 1996	SCI_cervical	physical_keyboard	various	N	6	23.20	6.80	-	-
Koester 1996	SCI_cervical	physical_keyboard	various	Y	6	14.20	3.90	-	-
Sears 2001	SCI_cervical	ASR	voice	N	7	11.61	6.78	-	-
Pouplin 2016	SCI_low_cervical	physical_keyboard	hands_unspecified	N	30	13.80	7.20	-	-
Pouplin 2016	SCI_low_cervical	physical_keyboard	hands_unspecified	Y	30	10.62	3.80	-	-
Pouplin 2016	SCI_low_cervical	physical_keyboard	hands_unspecified	Y	30	10.24	3.80	-	-
Pouplin 2016	SCI_low_cervical	physical_keyboard	hands_unspecified	Y	30	10.14	3.40	-	-
Pouplin 2016	SCI_low_cervical	physical_keyboard	hands_unspecified	Y	30	11.96	4.20	-	-

The list below shows all studies in the dataset that match your search criteria.

• Comparison of Computer Interface Devices for Persons With Severe Physical Disabilities Lau C, O'Leary S. (1993) American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47(11), 1022-1030. Show abstract This research employed a descriptive case study design to compare subjects’ performance using three computer input devices: the Tongue Touch Keypad, the HeadMaster, and the mouthstick. The sample consisted of four students with severe physical disabilities enrolled in an adaptive computer class at a community college. Components of performance examined were input speed, accuracy, and level of perceived exertion. Subjects’ acceptance of each of the interface devices was also examined. Results showed input speed to be the fastest with the mouthstick, followed by the HeadMaster and then the Tongue Touch Keypad. Accuracy of input did not vary significantly. Three subjects rated the Tongue Touch Keypad as requiring the lowest rate of perceived exertion, followed by the HeadMaster and then the mouthstick. Overall performance did not necessarily affect subjects’ acceptability ratings of the devices. Information from this study will assist therapists in evaluating the effectiveness and desirability of computer interface devices for patients.
• A Comparison of Two Computer Access Systems for Functional Text Entry DeVries R, Deitz J, Anson D. (1998) American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52(8), 656-665. Show abstract Objective. Functional written communication, an important goal in the rehabilitation of persons with tetraplegia, frequently is met through the use of personal computers and alternative computer access systems. To make informed decisions about alternative access systems, the therapist needs information on the efficacy of the available choices. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of two commercially available systems for text entry, the traditional mouthstick and the Prentke Romich HeadMaster. Method. Participants were a 25-year-old man and 76-year-old woman who both functioned at a C5 neurological level. Neither participant had previous experience with either system for text entry. A single-subject research design was used whereby Participant 1 experienced six phases of treatment (i.e., CBCBCB, where C = mouthstick andB = HeadMaster), and Participant 2 experienced four phases of treatment (i.e., BCBC). Results. Participant 1 achieved a maximum rate of text entry of 5.85 wpm with both the HeadMaster and the mouthstick, whereas Participant 2 achieved a maximum rate of 7.15 wpm with the mouthstick and 4.85 wpm with the HeadMaster. Results from this study were similar to the results from previous comparison studies of persons with severe disabilities who had no experience with alternative computer access systems. Conclusion. Both participants were able to use both systems successfully; however, their respective rates of text entry were too slow to be functional in most employment situations.
• Usage, performance, and satisfaction outcomes for experienced users of automatic speech recognition Koester H. (2004) Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 41(5), 739-754. Show abstract This paper presents a variety of outcomes data from 24 experienced users of automatic speech recognition (ASR) as a means of computer access. To assess usage and satisfaction, we conducted an in-person survey interview. For those participants who had a choice of computer input methods, 48% reported using ASR for 25% or less of their computer tasks, while 37% used ASR for more than half of their computer tasks. Users' overall satisfaction with ASR was somewhat above neutral (averaging 63 out of 100), and the most important role for ASR was as a means of reducing upper-limb pain and fatigue. To measure user performance, we asked users to perform a series of word processing and operating system tasks with their ASR systems. For 18 of these users, performance without speech was also measured. The time for nontext tasks was significantly slower with speech (p < 0.05). The average rate for entering text was no different with or without speech. Text entry rate with speech varied widely, from 3 to 32 words per minute, as did recognition accuracy, from 72% to 94%. Users who had the best performance tended to be those who employed the best correction strategies while using ASR.
• Toward automatic adjustment of keyboard settings for people with physical impairments Koester H, LoPresti E, Simpson R. (2007) Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 2(5), 261-274. Show abstract Purpose. We are developing a software system called IDA (Input Device Agent), whose goal is to optimally configure input devices for people with physical impairments. This study assessed IDA's ability to recommend three keyboard parameters in response to measurements of typing performance: repeat rate, repeat delay, and use of StickyKeys. Method. Twelve typists with physical impairments participated. The study employed a repeated measures design. Each participant typed six sentences in each of four keyboard conditions: default settings, IDA-recommended repeat settings, StickyKeys On, and a repeat of default settings. Results. Two participants had significant problems with inadvertent key repeats, when using the default repeat settings. For those two participants, use of the IDA-recommended repeat settings reduced the number of repeated characters by 96% and significantly improved text entry rate and typing accuracy. IDA recommended StickyKeys for six participants, each of whom had at least one problem related to modifying keys without StickyKeys. Use of StickyKeys for these individuals eliminated their modifier-related errors and significantly improved typing speed. IDA did not recommend StickyKeys for the six participants who demonstrated no need for it. Conclusions. The results indicate that IDA can provide useful assistance with repeat settings and StickyKeys.
• Automatic adjustment of keyboard settings can enhance typing Koester H, Mankowski J. (2015) Assistive Technology, 27(3), 136-146. Show abstract We developed and evaluated a software tool for the automatic configuration of Windows keyboard settings. The software is intended to accommodate the needs of people with physical impairments, with a goal of improved productivity and comfort during typing. The prototype software, called AutoIDA, monitors user activity during performance of regular computer tasks and recommends the Sticky Keys and key repeat settings to meet the user‰Ûªs specific needs. The evaluation study included fourteen individuals with upper extremity impairments. AutoIDA recommended changes to the default keyboard settings for 10 of the 14 participants. For these individuals, average typing speed was essentially the same whether users typed with the default keyboard settings (5.5 wpm) or the AutoIDA-recommended settings (5.3 wpm). Average typing errors decreased with use of the recommended settings, from 17.6% to 13.3%, but this was not quite statistically significant (p = .10). On an individual basis, four participants appeared to improve their overall typing performance with AutoIDA-recommended settings. For more specific metrics, AutoIDA prevented about 90% of inadvertent key repeats (with a revised algorithm) and increased the efficiency and accuracy of entering modified (shifted) characters. Participants agreed that software like AutoIDA would be useful to them (average rating 4.1, where 5 = strongly agree). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved). (journal abstract)
• Text input speed in persons with cervical spinal cord injury Pouplin S, Roche N, Vaugier I, Cabanilles S, Hugeron C, Bensmail D. (2015) Spinal Cord, 54(2), 158-162. Show abstract STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective clinical study. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to determine text input speed (TIS) in persons with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) and to study the influence of personal characteristics and type of computer access device on TIS. SETTING: This study was conducted in the Rehabilitation Department, Garches, France. METHODS: People with cervical SCI were included if their level of injury was between C4 and C8 Asia A or B, and if they were computer users. In addition, able-bodied people were recruited from the hospital staff. Each participant underwent a single evaluation using their usual computer access devices. TIS was evaluated during a 10-‰Ûämin copying task. The relationship between the characteristics of participants with cervical SCI, type of computer access device and TIS were analyzed using a Scheirer-Ray-Hare test (nonparametric test similar to a two-way analysis of variance). RESULTS: Thirty-five participants with cervical SCI and 21 able-bodied people were included. Median TIS of participants with cervical SCI was 9 (6; 14) words per minute (w.p.m.) and of able-bodied participants was 19 (14; 24)‰Ûäw.p.m. (P=0.001). Median TIS of participants with lesions at or above C5 was 12 (4; 13)‰Ûäw.p.m. and of those with lesions below C5 was 10 (9; 18)‰Ûäw.p.m. (P=0.38). The Scheirer-Ray-Hare test showed that only the type of computer access device significantly influenced TIS. Surprisingly, none of the person's characteristics, including the level of cervical lesion, affected TIS. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to analyze TIS in a group of participants with cervical SCI. The results showed that only the type of computer access device influenced TIS.Spinal Cord advance online publication, 15 September 2015; doi:10.1038/sc.2015.147.
• Effect of a word prediction feature on user performance Koester H, Levine S. (1996) AAC: Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 12(3), 155-168. Show abstract This study examines the influence of a word prediction feature on several measures of user performance during text entry tasks. Fourteen subjects transcribed text with and without a word prediction feature for seven test sessions. Eight subjects were able-bodied and used mouthstick typing, while six subjects had high-level spinal cord injuries and used their usual method of keyboard access. Use of word prediction significantly decreased text generation rate for the spinal cord injured (SCI) subjects and only modestly enhanced it for the able-bodied (AB) subjects. While fewer selections were required with the word prediction system, each selection took significantly longer to make, which we attribute to the additional cognitive and perceptual processes associated with use of word prediction. Performance was further analyzed by deriving subjects' times for keypress and list search actions during word prediction use. All subjects had slower keypress times during word prediction use as compared to letters-only typing, and SCI subjects had much slower list search times than AB subjects. Under the conditions of this experiment, the cognitive cost of using word prediction largely overwhelmed the benefit provided by keystroke savings. SCI subjects appeared to incur higher cognitive costs than AB subjects, possibly due to their prior expertise in letters-only typing.
• Productivity, satisfaction, and interaction strategies of individuals with spinal cord injuries and traditional users interacting with speech recognition software Sears A, Karat C, Oseitutu K, Karimullah A, Feng J. (2001) Universal Access in the information Society, 1(1), 4-15. Show abstract Sorry, no abstract available.
• Influence of the Number of Predicted Words on Text Input Speed in Participants With Cervical Spinal Cord Injury Pouplin S, Roche N, Vaugier I, Jacob A, Figere M, Pottier S, Antoine J, Bensmail D. (2016) Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 97(2), 259-265. Show abstract Objectives To determine whether the number of words displayed in the word prediction software (WPS) list affects text input speed (TIS) in people with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI), and whether any influence is dependent on the level of the lesion. Design A cross-sectional trial. Setting A rehabilitation center. Participants Persons with cervical SCI (N=45). Lesion level was high (C4 and C5, American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] grade A or B) for 15 participants (high-lesion group) and low (between C6 and C8, ASIA grade A or B) for 30 participants (low-lesion group). Intervention TIS was evaluated during four 10-minute copying tasks: (1) without WPS (Without); (2) with a display of 3 predicted words (3Words); (3) with a display of 6 predicted words (6Words); and (4) with a display of 8 predicted words (8Words). Main Outcome Measures During the 4 copying tasks, TIS was measured objectively (characters per minute, number of errors) and subjectively through subject report (fatigue, perception of speed, cognitive load, satisfaction). Results For participants with low-cervical SCI, TIS without WPS was faster than with WPS, regardless of the number of words displayed (P&lt;.001). For participants with high-cervical SCI, the use of WPS did not influence TIS (P=.99). There was no influence of the number of words displayed in a word prediction list on TIS; however, perception of TIS differed according to lesion level. Conclusions For persons with low-cervical SCI, a small number of words should be displayed, or WPS should not be used at all. For persons with high-cervical SCI, a larger number of words displayed increases the comfort of use of WPS.
• The effect of word prediction settings (frequency of use) on text input speed in persons with cervical spinal cord injury: a prospective study Pouplin S, Roche N, Antoine J, Vaugier I, Pottier S, Figere M, Bensmail D. (2016) Disability and Rehabilitation, 39(12), 1215-1220. Show abstract PURPOSE: To determine whether activation of the frequency of use and automatic learning parameters of word prediction software has an impact on text input speed. METHODS: Forty-five participants with cervical spinal cord injury between C4 and C8 Asia A or B accepted to participate to this study. Participants were separated in two groups: a high lesion group for participants with lesion level is at or above C5 Asia AIS A or B and a low lesion group for participants with lesion is between C6 and C8 Asia AIS A or B. A single evaluation session was carried out for each participant. Text input speed was evaluated during three copying tasks: • without word prediction software (WITHOUT condition) • with automatic learning of words and frequency of use deactivated (NOT_ACTIV condition) • with automatic learning of words and frequency of use activated (ACTIV condition) Results: Text input speed was significantly higher in the WITHOUT than the NOT_ACTIV (p< 0.001) or ACTIV conditions (p = 0.02) for participants with low lesions. Text input speed was significantly higher in the ACTIV than in the NOT_ACTIV (p = 0.002) or WITHOUT (p < 0.001) conditions for participants with high lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Use of word prediction software with the activation of frequency of use and automatic learning increased text input speed in participants with high-level tetraplegia. For participants with low-level tetraplegia, the use of word prediction software with frequency of use and automatic learning activated only decreased the number of errors. Implications in rehabilitation Access to technology can be difficult for persons with disabilities such as cervical spinal cord injury (SCI). Several methods have been developed to increase text input speed such as word prediction software.This study show that parameter of word prediction software (frequency of use) affected text input speed in persons with cervical SCI and differed according to the level of the lesion. • For persons with high-level lesion, our results suggest that this parameter must be activated so that text input speed is increased. • For persons with low lesion group, this parameter must be activated so that the numbers of errors are decreased. • In all cases, the activation of the parameter of frequency of use is essential in order to improve the efficiency of the word prediction software. • Health-related professionals should use these results in their clinical practice for better results and therefore better patients' satisfaction.